EXTERNAL DIAGNOSIS OF THE LOGISTICS SYSTEM: USING CUSTOMER SERVICE SURVEYS TO IDENTIFY IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

The lack of information can be one of the reasons that lead to bad administration. However, it is also not enough to accumulate a set of data without being able to transform them into relevant sources of information, which direct actions and help decision-making.

This article will address important items related to the need and ways of using information obtained through customer service surveys in the logistics process (surveys related to performance items measured outside the company's environment – ​​external performance indicators).

The main GAPs between what the company and the customer perceive will be presented: differences in perception that hinder logistical planning. And a methodology will be presented to identify opportunities for improvement in the service provided from the identification of the GAPs detected through customer surveys.

INTRODUCTION

One of the basic assumptions in planning a logistics system is that the activities that make up the logistics operation must be structured in order to achieve a certain level of customer service, at the lowest possible total cost.

The level of logistical service is one of the marketing mix variables: it refers to the “P” of Place which, together with the items Product, Price and Promotion, form the four controllable variables used in defining the company's market strategy.

The role of the logistics system is to ensure that the service levels determined in this company's market positioning are achieved. Not reaching the determined service levels means unbalancing the marketing plan. In turn, exceeding these established service levels can mean generating unnecessary additional costs for the company.

Given that service levels are the target of logistical planning, the importance of constantly monitoring it is clear. Knowing the service levels actually practiced by the company becomes an essential task, since they will be one of the most important performance indicators of the logistics process as a whole.

The issue, however, is how to measure the quality of the service provided, considering that the service is something abstract and intangible. And it is in answering this question that the need to know the perception and expectations of those who are receiving the service is clearly verified, carrying out measurements outside the company through customer service surveys.

WHY EXTERNAL INDICATORS?

It is common to identify two types of extreme thinking regarding the usefulness of customer surveys. The first of them idealizes that the surveys will be able to present all the solutions related to the service to be provided, as the clients will indicate how to satisfy their needs; the second radically questions the usefulness of customer surveys, given that they believe that customers cannot predict what they want and that their needs will be created based on what is offered by companies. It is necessary, however, to run away from extremes and understand that surveys should be seen as indicators and used as such; surveys will not present the solution to all problems, but they will indicate paths to be followed.

The importance of customer service surveys may also not be clear to companies that have accurate performance indicators internally, which correctly measure, for example, the fulfillment levels of orders delivered without errors and on time. Indeed, the existence of internal performance indicators is essential for the management and control of logistics activities, however, it is important to pay attention to the fact that internal indicators must coexist with external indicators, measured from perceptions outside the company: customer perceptions.

There are two main reasons for the need to obtain information from the customer's perspective:

(1) Identify the actual levels of customer satisfaction

(2) Minimize perception gaps between the company and the customer

An important theory about the measurement of service quality warns about the different results that can be found depending on how the data is collected and mainly on the origin of the information. These differences generate the GAPs, shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 makes it easy to understand why external measurements – from the customer's perspective – are necessary. It presents some of the main differences (GAPs) that can be detected when comparing the measurements carried out in the COMPANY environment with the measurements carried out from the CUSTOMER's perspective, with regard to the logistical service provided.

The three GAPs shown are caused by the absence or inadequacy of surveys with customers (note in the figure that GAPs I, II and III have at least one of their origins on the CUSTOMER side).

Therefore, returning to the two main reasons mentioned, which explain the need to carry out surveys with customers, we can justify each of them more clearly from the understanding of these GAPs. The two reasons are presented below, with their respective explanations:

(1) Identify the actual levels of customer satisfaction

One of the very efficient ways, and widely used in surveys that measure the degree of satisfaction with the service provided, is the decomposition of this measure of satisfaction into two different items: the EXPECTED service and the PERCEIVED service by the customer.

Perceived service is the customer's assessment of the performance of the company that provided the service. Expected service is the level of service that will satisfy the customer. It is often also referred to as a service expectation or requirement.

In this way, the measure of satisfaction becomes the result of comparing the service that the customer would like to receive with the evaluation he made of the service he received from the company. There will be dissatisfaction if the customer perceives a lower performance in the service provided by the company than expected; and the greater the dissatisfaction the greater the size of this GAP.

This difference between the expected service and the perceived service explains GAP I, shown in Figure 1. And it makes clear the importance of carrying out measurements outside the company (from the customer's perspective), as this way it will be possible to measure the size of dissatisfaction from the identification of GAP I, valuable information both for planning and for monitoring the performance of the company's logistics service. With it, it is possible to seek in a more accurate way the adequacy of the levels of service to be provided, which must be done by reducing the GAP I in each market segment.

(2) Minimize perception gaps between the company and the customer

The second reason that guarantees the importance of carrying out surveys with customers is the need to obtain information that will help in decision-making regarding the level of service to be provided.

The company's planning is carried out based on decisions made by its administrators. Decisions, in turn, will be more accurate the better the managers' knowledge of the market. Knowing the level of service desired by customers, although it is not in itself a guarantee of success in logistical planning, can help in decisions, as they are an indication of market demand.

GAP III, presented in Figure 1, highlights that the perception of the company's administrators regarding the service desired by its customers may turn out to be different from what the customer actually expects.

The reduction of this GAP III implies, therefore, the need to obtain information external to the company. However, more than collecting information from the market, it is necessary to make this information known to decision makers. It is important that this be highlighted, as it is common to verify the existence of communication problems within companies. Information on customer satisfaction and expectations often exists, even if not well structured, and is available from the sales team or call centers, but it is not used to aid planning.

The second difference between the customer's perception and the company's perception is represented by GAP II. This GAP highlights the difference that may exist between the company's internal performance indicators and customer perceptions regarding the service provided.

In this case, it is about knowing what the customer really perceived about the service performed by the company. And, contrary to what it may seem, there may be discrepancies between what the company measures and what the customer perceives. And the reasons for these differences could be both communication problems between the company and the customer, as well as internal measurement errors.

A classic example is related to one of the most important logistics performance indicators: the product availability index. A common measure in the performance indicators of companies, the percentage of completed orders delivered is an indication of the occurrence of product shortages. Indicators record whether the request made was fully met. However, what the system does not usually register is the absence that occurs before placing the order. For example, in the relationship between industry and retail, where there is a strong presence of the seller, there is a prior negotiation that can cause the retailer not to order everything he would like, because the seller warned him about the non-availability. That is, there was a shortage during the order taking that was not registered, because for the supplier industry, the shortage will be calculated from what was actually requested. The retailer, however, notices this lack. GAP II then begins to emerge.

It is worth mentioning that the customer will evaluate his supplier based on his perceptions; therefore, it is imperative that the indicators measured internally by the company are adjusted to the customer's perception. And the reduction of this GAP between the company's perception and the customer's perception can also be facilitated with the help of technology and new channels such as the Internet, which increase the agility in the flow of information.

IDENTIFYING OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH GAPs

Carrying out research and identifying GAPs, as previously mentioned, can be of great help in planning logistical activities and in deciding on actions to be taken to better match the levels of service offered.

The study of GAPs can point out opportunities for action that are often not noticeable. A very useful type of analysis, widely used in customer service surveys, is able to point out priorities for action within a group of possible items for improvement. To do so, it is first necessary to develop a search form that should list a set of service attributes, such as: delivery time, ease of placing the order, availability of products, among others that, together, will represent the service items. that are part of the order cycle and that must be evaluated.

Customers selected to participate in the survey will then be asked to indicate the service items they consider most important. This ranking can be done by ordering the service items listed in the search form or by using a Likert-type scale (1 to 5, for example), in which the customer indicates a higher or lower grade, depending on the importance assigns to each item.

The measure of this importance will help in defining the opportunities for action, however, it should not be used as an isolated indicator, because the company may already be presenting a good performance in the items considered of high importance. For example, it is possible that the research result points to delivery time as the most important service dimension in the relationship between company and customer. However, the company's performance may already be meeting the expectations of its customers, as orders are already delivered in 2 days while customers believe that this time could be up to 3 days.

Therefore, it is necessary to know not only the customers' perception of the importance of each service item, but also the degree of satisfaction with the company's performance.

Given that the satisfaction measure can be decomposed and identified from the comparison between the expected service and the service perceived by the customer (GAP I), the research methodology must be completed with questions about the customer's perception of the services provided by the company. company and with questions about what the customer would like to be receiving so as not to be dissatisfied, in each service item listed in the survey form. The results will allow the calculation of satisfaction indicators for each service item.

With these results, an aggregated analysis can be carried out with the measures of importance and the measures of customer satisfaction, obtaining a much more robust indicator to select the most opportune service items for improvement.

To carry out this analysis, which considers more than one indicator at once, it is customary to assemble a matrix that facilitates the graphical visualization of the results (see the example shown in Figure 2).

In this example, 7 existing service items throughout the order cycle are compared. The upper right quadrant points out the action priorities for the analyzed company to improve its level of service. This quadrant indicates that customer expectations are not being met in some service items considered of high importance, therefore, it is necessary to act to improve this situation.

What had not been commented so far, however, is what is represented by the colors of the dots in Figure 2: the comparison of the company's performance with the performance of the competition, very useful information for the company to know its position in the market .

To obtain competitive information, during data collection, customers may also be asked to rate the performance of competing providers on the same service items listed on the rating form. The results of the performance comparison should both alert the company to the items in which it is worse than the competition, and enable the use of the items in which it presents better performance as competitive differentials.

Therefore, by combining the information on: importance, customer satisfaction and performance in relation to the competition, it is possible to identify priority items for improvement. In the example shown in Figure 2, the results indicate that the company should be aware of delivery times and delays.

It must be remembered that the research is an indication, and never the complete solution. It is up to companies to outline the most efficient action plan.

In the example shown in Figure 2, the survey indicated issues related to time and late delivery. The solution, however, will not necessarily be increased use of premium transport. The solution may come with the implementation of a new order placement system, which will reduce internal typing times, reducing the time to release the order and, consequently, the total delivery time. Or the improvement may arise from agreements between company and customer, such as the agreement to place scheduled orders, which would reduce uncertainties and contribute to the reduction of inconsistencies that cause delays and shortages of products. Or perhaps problems related to delivery time and delays have their origin in communication problems. It is possible that the deliveries are actually meeting the agreed deadline, but the existence of queues of suppliers to unload goods are causing the need for re-deliveries, making the customer perceive a longer delivery time than the actual one (GAP II).

What is being sought to emphasize is that customer surveys will help by indicating priorities and presenting an overview encompassing the most opportune items to be worked on, however, it will be up to the company to decide on the solutions and improvement actions to be taken.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS

This article emphasizes the relevance of knowing the customer's perspective in relation to the logistics service provided by the company. However, the indisputable importance of internal performance indicators, which need to coexist with external indicators, should be clear.

Another important point that cannot be overlooked when analyzing logistic service levels is the issue of costs incurred to achieve certain goals. It can be said that improving the level of service is always possible, the costs, however, may grow in such a way that this improvement becomes unsustainable. Therefore, the company must outline its service goals always taking this restriction into account.

CONCLUSION

The levels of logistics service provided by a company can be decomposed into a series of performance items, such as the percentage of orders delivered on time, complete orders delivered, among others.

To measure compliance with established service level targets, the company can use internal performance indicators, however, it is based on the perceived service that customers will evaluate the company and make their purchase decisions. And it is for this reason that the importance of using performance indicators carried out externally to the company is emphasized. Customer surveys are therefore essential, both to assess performance and to identify customer expectations in terms of logistics service.

Action priorities can be identified from the analysis of the satisfaction GAPs, combined with the importance attributed to each service item and the company's situation in relation to its competitors in the market.

The company, however, should not wait for the customer to show him the solutions and actions needed for improvement. The customer's vision is a market indicator. The solutions must be proposed by the company, which must not limit itself to answering requests punctually, but present solutions that can reach the service level goals defined in each service item, being necessary to always monitor the performance of the competition and not forgetting that logistical planning must be aware of both the level of service and the costs of the process.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

HOPKINS, SA, STRASSER, S., HOPKINS, WE, Foster, JR. Service Quality Gaps in the Transporation Industry: an Empirical Investigation, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1993.

PARASURAMAN, A.; ZEITHAML, VA; BERRY, L.. “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of quality”. Journal of Retailing, Spring, 1988.

LA LONDE, BJ; COOPER, MC; NOORDEWIER, TG. Customer service: a management perspective. Oak Brook, Ill., Council of Logistics Management, 1988.

FLEURY, PF; FIGUEIREDO, KF; WANKE, P.. Business Logistics – The Brazilian Perspective. COPPEAD Administration Collection. Atlas, Sao Paulo, 2000.

Maria Fernanda Hijjar
Tel: (21) 3445 3000